Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dino,

thanks for the changes. For me is all good, except the two following points:

>> 
>>>   Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache
>>>   responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management
>>>   will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and
>>>   practical.  As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in
>>>   a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map
>>>   Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification of caching
>>>   functionality is left for future work.
>>> 
>> s/left for future work/ out of the scope of this document/
>> 

You do not agree with this suggestion? Sounds more neutral to me.

> 
>>>   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>   procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>>>   packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4.
>>> 
>> Don’t understand the “in Section 10.4” part. Should be deleted.
> 
> This was added when we were writing draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana (RFC8113). It was a request from someone (not Mohammad) I think. Didn’t change.

I am not against the sentence, is just the "Section 10.4” part, why should a document indicate a preference in a section 10.4?????
If you change the sentence to:

Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
  procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
  packet type MAY indicate a preferred value.


That makes more sens to me.

Ciao

L.